On the clans

JeffDillinger

Dilettante

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Jun 27, 2017
76
Terran Defense Corps
Rank: Major (R5)
Service Points: 0
After some discussion I only partly followed about the GotC owning a colony or not, I thought that it'd be kind of weird RP wise for clans or mercs to "own" a colony as there is hardly any reason why the TU or the corps with all their perceived "might" would let them. Having said that, ingame they do need a somewhat stable income. Therefore, my suggestions:

Area/colony co-ownership. The clans can take over certain parts of a colony, however never the entire colony itself. They build "corruption" or whatever you want to call it slowly up to taking over an area. The amount of corruption on a colony decides the income for the colony owner and the tax rate. As in, the higher the corruption, the lower the income for both the corps and the TU.

Now, because this is just negative for the TU/corps, what's to stop them from just killing all clans on the colonies? My suggestion is a bonus when corruption is between certain levels for the corporations. When notBoS has enough corruption on two colonies, transport costs lower between those colonies due to black market activities. High enough corruption removes taxes from terminals etc. GotC corruption provides some benefits too, as with NotGoM.

The benefit of a system like this is that clans still get to "own" territory without going too much against corps, it gives the corps and the clans a reason to work together on finding an optimal between corruption and corp ownership and it gives the TU reason to patrol colonies to lower corruption and get their taxes raised, whilst working together with the corps.

It's a raw suggestion that needs to be worked out but I don't really want to spend more time working it out if there is no animo.

Thoughts?
 

Sam Lysander

Taxpayer

Golden Donator
Alpha Tester
Oct 23, 2018
39
Arizona
Oda Zaibatsu
Rank: Daimyo (R6)
Service Points: 0
Seems like a good outline for something interesting, surely there will have to be more lengthy discussion but not a completely terrible idea.
 

Banjo

Helpful Citizen

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Jun 14, 2017
164
Terran Defense Corps
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
mercs should not add corruption, their economy should be entirely based around contracts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hepopotan and Pulse

Gavin

Taxpayer

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Jun 22, 2017
34
Keplers Dome
North Star
Mining
Rank: Senior Executive (R6)
Service Points: 0
I believe this idea is good but I also believe everyone should have the liberty to claim things even if it doesn't suit their need there shouldn't be any hard limitations, like that just soft ones. At the end of the day this is a sandbox and R7s should be able to do what they want with in-game consequences.

If TDC have their so-called might and power they should be able to take the colony GotC own, not hard-code them so they can't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macmardigan

Cadonez

Activist

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Jul 29, 2017
324
Brumpapa
The Syndicate
Rank: Master (R6)
Service Points: 0
Pretty sure this exact discussion has been had several times over the years.
What I said last time
 
Last edited:

Michael Reaper

Citizen

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Aug 26, 2018
67
Followers of Eternity
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
Well what if the issue arises where there is a merc contract off the books to take a colony and turn it over to a faction? The clans which I will use FoE as an example since we are seen as terrorists. Even Al Qaeda, and ISIS had a form of land/area which had a main base of operations. For AQ it was Afghanistan and Iraq areas, which we could make an assumption they would be considered colonies based on the fact they were countries and such. The bloodz and the Cripz owned Chicago among other cities basically.

The point is even these factions need a form of income to keep their purposes going in the game. Remember if they have no income they can't payout to members. Meaning members would be completely dependent on the market. Where as the TU/Corps factions are owning these areas and constantly getting an abundance from the market and their colonies they own. As well they get discounts in regards to some aspect of the market based on their faction. Which causes the issue of an unbalanced game for the Clans/Merc factions.

The other issue that arises now you have limited the fighting for a colony mostly down to 5 factions instead of 8. It would just be CPC/TDC/OZ/NSM/AE. Creates not just unbalance but a boring fight over these colonies. Again this is just my two cents in this and I just see it being a bigger issue than just letting them take ownership of a colony. As to the siphon idea, it still creates unbalance gameplay as it would only be like a 20-30% income for a short time period again still making members dependent mostly on the market to get most of the income. Then you only have FoE/Syndicate/Mercs fighting to siphon. Very little and boring for the fights through the siphon idea.

They wouldn't really be able to fight against the TU or Corps factions as they would have a bigger income at all times. Which means they would always be more geared and better prepared for a war against any of the clan/merc factions.
It also causes the clans/mercs not to ally or help any other factions in taking over a colony from another faction.
 
Last edited:

Hepopotan

Dweller

Jul 24, 2017
24
ya mum's hut
Civil Protection Commission
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
If you join mercs, you should understand you're joining a cell that has its income solely based around being hired to do beef. The merc faction shouldn't be self sufficient (or honestly sustainable in the long term unless there's lots of wars going on), they're a opportunist faction to bolster numbers and combat power.

Even though its simple role, you can't understate the importance of merc cells (think Built) during wars between the bigger factions as their main selling point is that these cells are comprised of good veteran fombatters that win fights/wars.

The idea that they spread corruption or have co-ownership would detract from what their purpose and experience in the game. Mercs isn't a beginner friendly faction nor is it a sustainable one, but its probably the most fun one during wars.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Pablo Hernandez

Pablo Hernandez

Dilettante

Golden Donator
Alpha Tester
Jun 13, 2017
97
Founders Penthouse, Mars.
Guns of the Conclave
Rank: Adjudicator (R6)
Service Points: 0
If you join mercs, you should understand you're joining a cell that has its income solely based around being hired to do beef. The merc faction shouldn't be self sufficient (or honestly sustainable in the long term unless there's lots of wars going on), they're a opportunist faction to bolster numbers and combat power.

Even though its simple role, you can't understate the importance of merc cells (think Built) during wars between the bigger factions as their main selling point is that these cells are comprised of good veteran fombatters that win fights/wars.

The idea that they spread corruption or have co-ownership would detract from what their purpose and experience in the game. Mercs isn't a beginner friendly faction nor is it a sustainable one, but its probably the most fun one during wars.
I completely agree that mercs are a combat/contract income focused faction, but allowing a faction to not take over territory takes quite a large chunk of gameplay out of the game, there are quite a few things you can do with a colony after a takeover besides just sit on it and profit. One example I'll use is to sell it to another faction or to the highest bidder. This was done in FoM quite often. Contracts also can't be the only form of income for mercs, 90% of the credits from the contract goes to the merc/cell that completed it and the other 10% goes to the faction, unless every contract is worth millions of UC the faction has no income to fund the training and gearing of noobs (also happened in FoM) or payouts for HC since R6/R7s cant take contracts how would they get paid if the faction has no money? Also, you're talking like cells and players coming to the game will be as good as Built was right from the start, contracts wont be worth much until people actually are good enough to take on harder/higher paying contracts. Honestly, people who never played in or were not HC in MotB shouldn't have an opinion on how Mercs should or should not operate. This is a player created content based game, too many restrictions and mechanics will just ruin it like they ruined FoM and FotD, nothing will change my opinion on that. Good Day sirs/ladies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Reaper

Michael Reaper

Citizen

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Aug 26, 2018
67
Followers of Eternity
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
I completely agree that mercs are a combat/contract income focused faction, but allowing a faction to not take over territory takes quite a large chunk of gameplay out of the game, there are quite a few things you can do with a colony after a takeover besides just sit on it and profit. One example I'll use is to sell it to another faction or to the highest bidder. This was done in FoM quite often. Contracts also can't be the only form of income for mercs, 90% of the credits from the contract goes to the merc/cell that completed it and the other 10% goes to the faction, unless every contract is worth millions of UC the faction has no income to fund the training and gearing of noobs (also happened in FoM) or payouts for HC since R6/R7s cant take contracts how would they get paid if the faction has no money? Also, you're talking like cells and players coming to the game will be as good as Built was right from the start, contracts wont be worth much until people actually are good enough to take on harder/higher paying contracts. Honestly, people who never played in or were not HC in MotB shouldn't have an opinion on how Mercs should or should not operate. This is a player created content based game, too many restrictions and mechanics will just ruin it like they ruined FoM and FotD, nothing will change my opinion on that. Good Day sirs/ladies.
I agree 100% with Pablo on this matter. Going to have to say mercs and clans having colonies my vote will be a yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pablo Hernandez

Michael Reaper

Citizen

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Aug 26, 2018
67
Followers of Eternity
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
FOE just agreed with you so you lost :furlord:
It is a mutual understanding. FOE would have no real reason to fight the TU, nor the income. If even FOE can't take a colony or liberate it from the TU. Would defeat the purpose of the faction in itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macmardigan

Hepopotan

Dweller

Jul 24, 2017
24
ya mum's hut
Civil Protection Commission
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
ayyight boy Pablo over here with the #MotBGate2020 lmao.

Alright fine with me, I agree that mercs should be able to take over territories, but only when contracted to do so under the pretense that the colony is transferred over to the faction that requested such. There's your little deception where you can choose not transfer over the colony and instead sell it to the highest bidder, with consequences of course.

However, the mercs being able to take over a colony when ever they want to essentially hold hostage for the highest bidder is more FoE territory with them being the supposed actual terrorists of the game.

Essentially both systems can converge to the same point (bidding off a colony), however the mechanism for how they got there makes the distinction, so that one faction isn't doing another's job. The last thing I want to see is homogeneity between factions like in FotD.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pablo Hernandez

Pablo Hernandez

Dilettante

Golden Donator
Alpha Tester
Jun 13, 2017
97
Founders Penthouse, Mars.
Guns of the Conclave
Rank: Adjudicator (R6)
Service Points: 0
I'll say this plain and simple.

If corps can have guns, then mercs can own colonies.

You can't take away a core gameplay mechanic from a faction and leave them with a mechanic that anyone can do if they practice enough. (Combat Only) its not fair or balanced.
 

Tan

Citizen

Nov 7, 2017
50
Guns of the Conclave
Rank: Leader (R5)
Service Points: 0
There's roleplay and there's gameplay mechanics - you can't gimp an entire set of factions for RP only reasons when the effects have a gameplay and therefore future narrative consequence. You're saying clans shouldn't own colonies because it makes the lore less clean cut about TU's role, I'm saying, well if clans don't own colonies, how are clans going to compete versus factions who do own colonies at a gameplay level?

A corruption mechanic wouldn't work because anything generated there still goes to the owner of the colony/territory, taxing territories does work but again, a portion of that tax goes to the owner of the colony as a whole. So where does this end? Should we all join NSM and make a cell there? Because clearly it looks like everyone is focused on gimping clans but no one is looking at adding features instead?
 

Michael Reaper

Citizen

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Aug 26, 2018
67
Followers of Eternity
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
There's roleplay and there's gameplay mechanics - you can't gimp an entire set of factions for RP only reasons when the effects have a gameplay and therefore future narrative consequence. You're saying clans shouldn't own colonies because it makes the lore less clean cut about TU's role, I'm saying, well if clans don't own colonies, how are clans going to compete versus factions who do own colonies at a gameplay level?

A corruption mechanic wouldn't work because anything generated there still goes to the owner of the colony/territory, taxing territories does work but again, a portion of that tax goes to the owner of the colony as a whole. So where does this end? Should we all join NSM and make a cell there? Because clearly it looks like everyone is focused on gimping clans but no one is looking at adding features instead?
He has a valid point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pablo Hernandez